Christopher Beres and Andrew Delaney v. RELX, Inc., d/b/a LEXIS NEXIS USA, and Portfolio Media, Inc.

2025 DNH 048

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 25-cv-79-SM-AJ
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Beres and Andrew Delaney

v. Case No. 25-cv-79-SM-AJ Opinion No. 2025 DNH 048 RELX, Inc., d/b/a LEXIS NEXIS USA, and Portfolio Media, Inc.

O R D E R

Plaintiffs Christopher Beres and Andrew Delaney bring

defamation and related claims against RELX, Inc. and Portfolio

Media, Inc. (“PMI”), arising from several published articles

that refer to them. They move to remand this case to the New

Hampshire state courts after the original plaintiff, Beres,

added Delaney as a plaintiff, which destroyed diversity

jurisdiction. Defendants now move to sever Delaney from the

case and object to remand. For the reasons that follow,

defendants’ motion to sever is granted, and plaintiffs’ motion

to remand is denied.

Background 1

Andrew Delaney is a United States citizen who resides in

the Philippines. He was employed by a staffing agency, HC2,

Inc., and in that capacity, Delaney worked as a temporary

1 The background information is summarized from the record in this case, which includes decisions issued in other cases involving these same parties. document reviewer at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering

Hale and Dorr (“WilmerHale”). Delaney reviewed Thai language

documents for a project undertaken on behalf of the firm’s

client, Toyota Motor Corporation. Doc. no. 10-3, at 3. After

Toyota suspended the project (due to the COVID-19 pandemic), HC2

notified Delaney that he would not be paid while the project was

suspended. Id.

In response, Delaney, through Beres, who was acting as his

legal counsel, sent a demand letter to Toyota, but Toyota did

not respond. 2 On April 15, 2020, Beres filed a lawsuit against

Toyota on Delaney’s behalf in Brevard County, Florida. Delaney

later dismissed the suit without prejudice. Id.

HC2 filed suit against Delaney in federal court in the

Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract and

other claims, arising from information about Toyota that Delaney

2 Beres identifies himself as an attorney in the amended complaint, but he did not include a bar registration number or disclose an affiliation with a law firm in his signature block. Doc. no. 6. When an attorney represents a party in this court, “[t]he attorney’s name, address, primary telephone number, email address and New Hampshire bar number, or its equivalent in cases where the attorney is not a member of the New Hampshire bar, shall appear on all filings.” LR 5.1(b). In lieu of representation by an attorney, individuals may represent themselves by appearing personally and “declaring their pro se status in their initial filing or in a notice of appearance.” LR 83.6(b). Pro se parties cannot represent other parties. Id. Beres and Delaney appear to be proceeding pro se, but neither has properly identified his status, and the court reminds both plaintiffs that Beres, as a pro se party, cannot represent Delaney in this case.

2 included in the complaint filed in Florida state court. HC2,

Inc. v. Delaney, 20-cv-3178-LJL (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 22, 2020)

(“HC2 case”). HC2 alleged that Delaney tried to coerce HC2,

Toyota, and WilmerHale to pay him a large amount of money to

avoid public disclosure of Toyota’s information and sought

injunctive relief against him, which was denied. Doc. no. 10-3,

at 5. The Honorable Lewis J. Liman presided in that case. Id.

Delaney filed for bankruptcy relief on December 23, 2020,

in the Eastern District of New York. In re Andrew Delaney, 20-

bk-44372-JMM. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the HC2 case

substituted the bankruptcy trustee as the defendant in place of

Delaney. HC2, 20-cv-3178, at doc. no. 144. Despite no longer

being a party in the case, Delaney moved for Judge Liman to

recuse himself, arguing that the judge was biased against him.

HC2 case, doc. nos. 159, 160, 161. Because Delaney was no

longer a party, his motions had no effect. Id., doc. no. 165.

That case remains stayed because of Delaney’s pending bankruptcy

proceedings. Id., doc. no. 188 (dated Dec. 30, 2024).

RELX owns PMI, which publishes Law360, an internet legal

news service. Law360 published articles about the HC2 case

between December 20, 2021, and January 6, 2023. Delaney and

Beres filed defamation lawsuits against PMI and RELX, based upon

statements published in the articles.

3 The first defamation suit was filed in federal court in the

Southern District of Florida on February 10, 2022, challenging

eight statements in four of the Law360 articles as defamatory.

When defendants moved to dismiss the claims, Delaney and Beres

voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice. A year later,

however, Delaney and Beres filed an identical complaint in

Florida state court, and, again, when defendants moved to

dismiss, Delaney and Beres voluntarily dismissed the suit.

Several months later, Delaney and Beres filed a third suit in

Florida state court, alleging defamation based on the same

statements as well as three additional statements in new Law360

articles. And, once again, when defendants moved to dismiss,

Delaney and Beres filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Doc.

no 10-4 at 2-4.

Delaney then filed a defamation complaint in Minnesota

state court, challenging the same eight statements that were

raised in the third case (the second Florida state court suit).

The Minnesota court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based

on forum non conveniens. The Minnesota court, alternatively,

granted the motion to dismiss the defamation claims on the

merits and dismissed the claims with prejudice. Doc. no. 10-4,

at 4.

After that case was dismissed, Delaney filed a new action

in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County,

4 again alleging that defendants defamed him. That court

dismissed with prejudice Delaney’s claims based on all but two

of the eight challenged statements. The court also dismissed

all claims against RELX.

Several months later, Beres filed yet another defamation

case in state court (in New Hampshire, Rockingham County

Superior Court) against RELX and PMI. Defendants removed that

case to this federal court, based on diversity of citizenship,

28 U.S.C. § 1332. Beres then filed an amended complaint in

which he added Delaney as a plaintiff, along with additional

allegations of defamatory statements. In the amended complaint,

Beres and Delaney allege that the following statements published

by defendants are false and defamatory:

Statement 1: “A former WilmerHale document reviewer said

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman should be disqualified from

overseeing a Southern District of New York suit that accuses him

of extorting his former law firm because of the judge’s alleged

previous employment there.”

Statement 2: “Toyota and the Thai Judge Bribery Scandal.”

Statement 3: “The disclosure came the same month that a

former WilmerHale temp, Andrew Delaney, sued Toyota in a Florida

state court, claiming it was engaged in a cover-up of alleged

corruption in Thailand.”

5 Statement 4: “Agency Pans Ex-WilmerHale Temp’s DQ Bid in

Extortion Case.”

Statement 5: “HC2 sued Delaney, who’d worked on a Toyota

matter as a Thai language reviewer for WilmerHale via a staffing

agency, for allegedly trying to extort $450,000 from the

company, WilmerHale and the car maker, and for allegedly

revealing Toyota’s sensitive company information in a Florida

lawsuit after they failed to pay up.”

Statements 6: “Court Rejects Recusal Bid in WilmerHale

Extortion Suit.”

Statement 7: “A New York federal district court said

Thursday that it would not recuse itself in a suit against a

former WilmerHale document reviewer that accuses him of

extorting the law firm....”

Statement 8: “While it is unclear exactly why the two

firms were involved in the matter, the same month Toyota

disclosed the purported misconduct, a temporary member of the

WilmerHale review team sued Toyota in Florida state court,

alleging the company was engaged in a cover-up of corruption in

Thailand. The claims by attorney, document reviewer and Thai

translator Andrew Delaney sparked lengthy and acrimonious

litigation across multiple jurisdictions that remains

unresolved. Delaney withdrew the Florida complaint, but other

lawsuits are pending.... The Delaney lawsuit could have an

6 impact on whether the U.S. government considers Toyota’s

disclosure voluntary, experts noted. If prosecutors find that

Delaney's suit forced Toyota to disclose the suspected bribery,

then the company may not get credit for a voluntary disclosure -

and lose a 50% fine reduction and a chance to avoid

prosecution.”

Statement 9: “Toyota appealed the tax judgment to

Thailand's Supreme Court in late December 2019....”

Statement 10: “The settlement laid to rest claims Delaney

filed against the firm alleging Sullivan & Cromwell acted

unethically in a $56.2 million arbitration with Laos,

allegedly costing the attorney millions of dollars in fees

dating back to 2017.”

Statement 11: “The case pending before the New York County

Supreme Court is just one of the challenges Delaney has

‘repeatedly and unsuccessfully’ launched in an effort to ax

the settlement, Sullivan & Cromwell said.”

Discussion

The motions to remand and to sever address the court’s

subject matter jurisdiction. Federal district courts have

subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332(a) in suits “between

‘citizens of different States’ whose dispute involves more than

a stated sum (the so-called amount-in-controversy).” Royal

7 Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 26 (2025).

“United States citizens who are domiciled abroad are citizens of

no state; their ‘“stateless” status destroy[s] complete

diversity under § 1332(a)(3), and [their] United States

citizenship destroy[s] complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2).”

D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Mehrotra, 661

F.3d 124, 126 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v.

Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 829 (1989)).

The parties agree that because Delaney is a United States

citizen who resides in the Philippines, he is “stateless” for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a). For that

reason, adding Delaney as a plaintiff in the amended complaint

would have the effect of destroying diversity jurisdiction.

Beres and Delaney move to remand the case to state court based

on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants move to

sever Delaney from this case, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 21, to restore diversity jurisdiction.

A. Motion to Sever

“Dismissal of a nondiverse dispensable party has long been

recognized as a way to cure a jurisdictional defect and Rule 21

explicitly vests district courts with authority to allow a

dispensable non-diverse party to be dropped at any time.” Cason

v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 770 F.3d 971, 977 (1st Cir.

2014) (citing Newman-Green, 490 U.S. at 832-838). Determining

8 whether a party is dispensable and severable from a case or

indispensable and not severable requires a two-step analysis

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. United States v. San

Juan Bay Marina, 239 F.3d 400, 405 (1st Cir. 2001). The court

first determines whether the person is a required party because

“in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete

relief among existing parties,” or “that person claims an

interest relating to the subject of the action and is so

situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence

may . . . impede or impair the person’s ability to protect the

interest . . . or leave an existing party subject to . . .

inconsistent obligations . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).

Second, if the person is a required party, the court must decide

“whether in equity and good conscience, the action should

proceed among the existing parties,” without the required party,

based on a variety of factors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b).

Defendants, as the parties that removed the case from state

court and the parties moving to sever to preserve jurisdiction,

bear the burden of showing that Delaney is a dispensable party

who may be severed from the case. AC Ocean Walk, LLC v.

Investors Bancorp, Inc., 2023 WL 8802531, at *7 (D.N.J. Dec. 20,

2023); Second State Enters., Inc. v. Mid-Atlantic Inv., LLC,

2014 WL 4091846, at *3 & n.1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2014).

9 In support of their motion, defendants assert first that

Delaney is not a required party because, after initially

proceeding jointly in their defamation cases, more recently he

and Beres have pursued their claims separately in different

courts, thereby demonstrating that neither is an indispensable

party to the other’s claims. Delaney, proceeding alone,

continues to litigate defamation claims against the same

defendants in New York state court. Defendants contend that

Delaney is not indispensable under the Rule 19(b) factors

because plaintiffs’ own choice to maintain separate suits

persuasively demonstrates a lack of prejudice if they proceed

separately. Defendants claim no prejudice to them if Delaney

were severed from this case. 3 Defendants also contend that both

Beres and Delaney have adequate remedies available to them.

In response, plaintiffs argue that Delaney “is not an

irrelevant party . . . [and] [h]is participation will not create

delays and confusion.” Doc. no. 13, at 2. They also argue that

Delaney is indispensable because the eleven alleged defamatory

statements involve or refer to him.

3 For purposes of the Rule 19(b) factors, defendants appear to suggest a severance of the claims in the case (rather than dropping Delaney as a party) so that part of the case, Delaney’s claims, could be remanded to state court. That does not appear to be the relief defendants request in their motion, where they ask that the court drop Delaney from the case, and the court declines to venture into the possibility of severing claims.

10 Recall that Delaney is currently pursuing a separate

defamation case in New York, without Beres, in which the court

has dismissed all but two of his claims. Delaney has not shown

that he could or should be permitted to raise or relitigate

claims here that he either could have but did not bring in the

New York case or that have been dismissed there. Defendants

contend that Delaney has an adequate remedy in his parallel New

York litigation, and, for that reason, he is not necessary in

this case. Plaintiffs have not countered defendants’ showing or

established that Delaney’s available remedies in the New York

case are inadequate.

In addition, even if Delaney could show that he would be

prejudiced if dropped from this case, Rule 19 provides several

means to lessen or avoid prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)(2).

Among the suggested remedies, the court can shape the relief

awarded and include protective provisions in a judgment. Id.

Plaintiffs, however, did not address the possible remedies to

avoid prejudice, and the court will not speculate at this stage

about which, if any, remedies under Rule 19(b)(2) might be

appropriate.

B. Motion to Remand

Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court on the

ground that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking after

Delaney was added to the case. With Delaney dropped from the

11 case, his stateless status has no bearing on diversity

jurisdiction.

In his reply to defendants’ objection, Beres challenges

defendants’ statement of diversity jurisdiction in the notice of

removal. This is a new issue that is not properly raised for

the first time in a reply. See Sevelitte v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co. of Am., 123 F.4th 53, 61 n.7 (1st Cir. 2024); In re Moveit

Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 2024 WL 5099823, at *6 (D.

Mass. Dec. 12, 2024); Frese v. MacDonald, 512 F. Supp. 3d 373,

290 (D.N.H. 2021). The issue is also not sufficiently raised or

supported to allow the court to address and resolve the matter.

See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990);

accord New York v. Trump, --- F. 4th ---, 2025 WL 914788, at *14

(1st Cir. Mar. 26, 2025). To the extent Beres has a good faith

basis to challenge diversity jurisdiction based on his

citizenship at the time of filing or the amount in controversy,

he may raise the issue in a separate motion to remand based on

the absence of diversity jurisdiction. 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

4 In the original state court complaint, Beres alleged that he resided at an address in Melbourne, Florida, and that the defendants were Delaware and New York corporations, which supports diversity. He claimed damages in the amount of $10,000,000. Doc. no. 1-1. Although Beres faults defendants’ notice of removal, which relied on his allegations, it is far from clear whether he asserts that diversity jurisdiction does not exist (even in the absence of Delaney).

12 Conclusion

For these reasons, defendants’ motion to sever (doc. no. 9)

is granted. Andrew Delaney is no longer a plaintiff in the

case. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (doc. no. 7) is denied.

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a reply (doc. no. 21) is

granted and the reply was considered.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

April 1, 2025

cc: Christopher Beres, pro se Andrew Delaney, pro se Counsel of Record